First, Ignatieff strongly supports the general GWOT which has cost him much of his liberal support in Canada.

Second, he is a prominent member of parliament for the Liberal Party of Canada and has a decent chance to actually run it in the near future. The Conservative and the cynic in me sees this as an attempt to garner the support of Canadians. In other words, this is a political ploy by Ignatieff to increase his support.

However, I think that he deserves more credit than that. Charity in all things and such...

Good point...I knew there was a reason it was better to be an academic generalist! Besides the fact that its easier to get a job, of course!

Middle East Studies profs opposed the war for a variety of reasons, good and bad. Many pointed to the regional implications of the invasion as well as the incredible complexity of nation-building in such a fragmented, sectarian state. Their concerns were dismissed too cavalierly by those advocating invasion for Spreading Democracy Throughout the Arab World.

Perhaps. But it seems to me, that it is rather relate to be making judgments about whether or not the military option was the correct one, in this case. Let's remember, that the perception of success or failure is changing rather rapidly, despite the best efforts of those who oppose our action to cast it as a failure.

In my, admittedly limited, experience, no. It's true that academics across the board have as many biases as non-academics. With respect to their actual discipline, though, Area Studies people are generally about as objective as those in Women's Studies and Afro-American studies. The nature of immersion is passionate bias. Conversely, pure IR scholars tend to view their subject matter based on the numbers or a macro theory.

Ward Churchill, anyone?

Of course, academics in the field of Middle East studies are no more or no less biased in their worldviews than academics in any other discipline and their opinions should therefore be provided a commensurate level of uncritical support. Right?

In my, admittedly limited, experience, no. It's true that academics across the board have as many biases as non-academics. With respect to their actual discipline, though, Area Studies people are generally about as objective as those in Women's Studies and Afro-American studies. The nature of immersion is passionate bias. Conversely, pure IR scholars tend to view their subject matter based on the numbers or a macro theory.